In the United States v. Ranlett and Stone case of 1898, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land patents in California. The defendants, Ranlett and Stone, were accused by the U.S government of illegally occupying public lands that had been granted to Southern Pacific Railroad Company under an act passed in July 1866. The defendants argued they held valid title to these lands through preemption rights established before this grant was made. However, their claim was based on a survey map which inaccurately depicted the location of certain sections due to errors made by Deputy Surveyor Stratton during his initial surveying work for establishing township lines. The court concluded that although there were indeed mistakes in Stratton's original field notes and plats concerning section numbers and locations within townships, it did not affect or invalidate any subsequent surveys conducted using those same records as reference points for determining boundaries between different parcels of land within each township. Therefore, even though some parts of Stratton's work contained errors regarding specific details about individual sections' exact positions relative to one another inside their respective townships (which could potentially impact where exactly certain properties might be located), such discrepancies didn't necessarily mean all other aspects related directly or indirectly with his overall task – i.e., setting up general guidelines used later when dividing entire regions into smaller units suitable for sale or lease - should automatically be considered flawed too just because he got few things wrong here and there along way. As a result, despite acknowledging existence of minor irregularities

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Ranlett and Stone case argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the law. The dissenters believed that, according to existing laws, it was not necessary for an individual to be physically present within U.S. territory at the time of their alleged crime in order for them to be prosecuted under U.S. law. They contended that if an act committed outside of American jurisdiction had harmful effects within its borders, then it should still fall under U.S legal purview regardless of where it took place initially. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's ruling which held otherwise - stating instead that physical presence is required for prosecution.